What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.
I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?
Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.
He seems like the better pick to me to chair the committee to be frank.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
But you want to ignore what the Scottish MPs and Scottish Parliament elected by Scottish voters have to say and respond with "f**k off we don't care about you".
And you call that "Unionist"
We don't care what Nationalists think no, the majority of 2014 No voting Scottish Unionists who won that referendum do not want indyref2 as all polls show
It doesn't matter what the polls show there will be elections in 2021 and what matters is the result in those elections. Elections always trump polls.
And no Parliament can bind its successor. The 2021 elections trump any pre 2014 referendum, pre-Brexit committments.
Even in 2016, 2017 and 2019 Unionists won most votes, the fact Nationalists might win most seats again does not change that nor the fact that Westminster is the Supreme Power in the UK not Holyrood and its consent is needed for any indyref2 and there is a Tory majority at Westminster until 2024 on a manifesto commitment to blocking indyref2
Good news stories are the fluff piece at the end of the bulletin. Good news stories are the page fillers for local newspapers that gets the family of the child selling lemonade for charity to buy copies. It lasts no longer than it takes you to read it.
Bad news? Legs that run for days or weeks. The longer the better.
Good news often just isn't news, of course. Today's vaccine front page is an obvious exception.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Whilst not particularly well put by Thatcher with hindsight, I think her point is a general anti-referendum point (with which I tend to agree) which is that MPs should stand on what they intend to do, not on the promise of a referendum. So, if Scotland voted for a majority of MPs saying they will take Scotland out of the UK, that's enough.
But, actually, that's not what they have done as the SNP policy in in recent elections has NOT technically been independence but a referendum on independence (where they'd campaign for "yes" of course, but wouldn't go for independence without a referendum).
The SNP's reason for doing that is partly electoral in that there are SNP voters who aren't especially keen on independence but feel the SNP provides a more powerful voice for Scotland than does a sub-branch of a UK-wide party (they are in a minority among SNP voters but no doubt deliver seats the SNP wouldn't otherwise win).
EDIT: This does in a sense mean the SNP have some of this in their hands despite being unable to force a referendum, as they could change policy for future elections to "Independence WITHOUT a referendum (as voting for us IS the referendum)". I strongly suspect they won't do that as it would lose the soft SNP wing, but they do have the option to double down in that way.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Saw the photo then was surprised to see the poster was Rochdale and not isam! I'm guessing it's percolated more than I'd expected.
What has SKS done? ... having to pay out libel damages for attacking its own employees pointing to its racism.
I missed this libel payments to employees one. Do you have a link?
I'm aware of Roy McCluskey seemingly giving about half a million of Union Members' money to the bloke who runs Skwawkbox for legal fees wrt Anna Turley, but not the other.
Roy? Does Len have an evil twin?
Touche.
Big hospital appointment this afternoon. Distracted.
The even better one which I think I have managed to avoid so far on PB is to turn Margaret Hodge into Patricia Hodge by reflex.
I might even compile a note to my Red Wall Tory MP suggesting ways of dealing with Main Residence CGT Relief whilst the elixir is being dripped in.
Vaccine: reminds me of 1955/6 and the race to get a one for Polio. The US and Uk had produced something, then the first had to be withdrawn and the second was delayed, due to over optimism. I was at school and parents had been told the UK one would be available. But that went wrong so we were offered a vaccine from Canada that appeared tried and tested. We all had that one which worked.. It is a salutory lesson in US and UK thinking they are best. It is places that do things quietly that are best. Again Canada seems to have handled the virus much better than ourselves. See they are keeping the border with US closed for another 6 weeks at least!
You can't do clinical trials involving thousands of people quietly. How would you even recruit volunteers ?
The Chinese approach. Have your volunteers sequestrated in... facilities.
All these bigoted Brexiters with their anti-China Policy (all hail Edward Heath) have missed out on a vital economic opportunity.
The Chinese have vast number of Uyghurs in voluntary re-socialisation facilities. I'm quite sure they are already volunteering to help society by testing medical advances.
Instead of the little Englander mentality that "our morals are better", we should embrace the Chinese policy.
I wonder how much they charge per "log" - though we could probably make money, using a partnership with the Chinese government.
Come to think of it, we could clear up all kind of interesting questions about the genetics of twins at the same time.
Actually, I think they're using the army. Unclear whether that is volunteers, though one suspects they are volunteered...
Publicly.
However, we have -
1) A regime that regards itself above principle 2) A captive population that it regards as inferior and problematic 3) A previous history of medical testing on prisoners (political and otherwise).
I think it is virtually certain that they tested this on prisoners first, *then* the army.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
The poll is two and a half years old . So is utterly pointless. A lot has happened since then . If the SNP include a referendum in their manifesto and then win next years elections then the government should agree to a referendum. You know just like Cameron included the EU ref in his manifesto which was respected .
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
I'm not whinging about it more laughing at how incompetently it's being done - and I only voted for it as except there I always vote for the losing party.
Remember I sell software and consultancy - which is the ultimate in invisible exports
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Recent polling means last 3 months (6 at a push) not 2 and a half years ago...
Even in May most Scots did not want indyref2 for at least 5 years and there are only 4 years left of this Tory majority government, so by definition the Tories can refuse it for that time. If Starmer wins in 2024 and allows indyref2 that is up to him
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
I'm not whinging about it more laughing at how incompetently it's being done - and I only voted for it as except there I always vote for the losing party.
Remember I sell software and consultancy - which is the ultimate in invisible exports
If you voted for it you have to respect the views of the majority of your fellow leavers who voted also to end free movement and leave the customs union
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Recent polling means last 3 months (6 at a push) not 2 and a half years ago...
Even in May most Scots did not want indyref2 for at least 5 years and there are only 4 years left of this Tory majority government, so by definition the Tories can refuse it for that time. If Starmer wins in 2024 and allows indyref2 that is up to him
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
The poll is two and a half years old . So is utterly pointless. A lot has happened since then . If the SNP include a referendum in their manifesto and then win next years elections then the government should agree to a referendum. You know just like Cameron included the EU ref in his manifesto which was respected .
Boris won on a manifesto commitment in 2019 for no indyref for a generation
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
The poll is two and a half years old . So is utterly pointless. A lot has happened since then . If the SNP include a referendum in their manifesto and then win next years elections then the government should agree to a referendum. You know just like Cameron included the EU ref in his manifesto which was respected .
Boris won on a manifesto commitment in 2019 for no indyref for a generation
How many seats did he win in Scotland where the SNP were running on a manifesto that included a second referendum?
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Vaccine: reminds me of 1955/6 and the race to get a one for Polio. The US and Uk had produced something, then the first had to be withdrawn and the second was delayed, due to over optimism. I was at school and parents had been told the UK one would be available. But that went wrong so we were offered a vaccine from Canada that appeared tried and tested. We all had that one which worked.. It is a salutory lesson in US and UK thinking they are best. It is places that do things quietly that are best. Again Canada seems to have handled the virus much better than ourselves. See they are keeping the border with US closed for another 6 weeks at least!
You can't do clinical trials involving thousands of people quietly. How would you even recruit volunteers ?
The Chinese approach. Have your volunteers sequestrated in... facilities.
All these bigoted Brexiters with their anti-China Policy (all hail Edward Heath) have missed out on a vital economic opportunity.
The Chinese have vast number of Uyghurs in voluntary re-socialisation facilities. I'm quite sure they are already volunteering to help society by testing medical advances.
Instead of the little Englander mentality that "our morals are better", we should embrace the Chinese policy.
I wonder how much they charge per "log" - though we could probably make money, using a partnership with the Chinese government.
Come to think of it, we could clear up all kind of interesting questions about the genetics of twins at the same time.
Actually, I think they're using the army. Unclear whether that is volunteers, though one suspects they are volunteered...
Publicly.
However, we have -
1) A regime that regards itself above principle 2) A captive population that it regards as inferior and problematic 3) A previous history of medical testing on prisoners (political and otherwise).
I think it is virtually certain that they tested this on prisoners first, *then* the army.
Impossible to know, though they're certainly capable of such evil. Conducting experiments on individuals they don't regard as ethnically pure enough, and then having to repeat them might be regarded as unnecessarily slow.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Thatcher is not PM and she made the comment even before Holyrood was created let alone the 2014 referendum
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Any buyers remorse?
I didn't purchase enough shares in popcorn manufacturers.
For entertainment value, it's a gift that just keeps on giving..
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
The poll is two and a half years old . So is utterly pointless. A lot has happened since then . If the SNP include a referendum in their manifesto and then win next years elections then the government should agree to a referendum. You know just like Cameron included the EU ref in his manifesto which was respected .
Boris won on a manifesto commitment in 2019 for no indyref for a generation
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
So your principle now seems to be that those who voted against it can't object to how it's carried out, however perversely, and neither should those who voted for it ?
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
The data is from the WHO, this just presents it in a readable format. Unless the WHO is too Anglo-Saxon for you as well, Stuart.
If you have examples of non-UK/US vaccine candidates that are in phase 3 trials but not getting any airtime, please post them, I'd be interested to read about them.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
Absolutely. If you ram it hard enough down his throat he's bound to vote for you next time
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
I'm not whinging about it more laughing at how incompetently it's being done - and I only voted for it as except there I always vote for the losing party.
Remember I sell software and consultancy - which is the ultimate in invisible exports
If you voted for it you have to respect the views of the majority of your fellow leavers who voted also to end free movement and leave the customs union
Isn't the implication that you'd then do what only what a relatively small minority want? The (possibly narrow) majority of a (definitely narrow) majority isn't a majority... it's a potentially pretty small group.
This highlights the issue ever since 2016 (not just from Leavers but Remainers too). It's always been a battle for the spoils of war, not a sensible discussion about how to compromise in a mature and reasonable way given the exposure of some painful divisions.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Dominic Grieve has been pretty clear that there are no bombshells contained therein.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
Some very interesting results on the side questions. Also interesting that on the question on Who do you think will win the Presidential election, Trump 38%, Biden 37%
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
Absolutely. If you ram it hard enough down his throat he's bound to vote for you next time
He doesn't vote Tory now, the Tories have a majority of 80, his vote is not needed.
However he did vote for Brexit, therefore he cannot complain about Brexit being delivered or the manifesto on which Leave won and which is now being implemented, he voted for it, he owns it!
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?
Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?
We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.
Not so fast. There often isn't a single smoking gun that changes the climate of opinion. It is the steady drip of stuff showing what a faction is made of. There is probably no one piece of hard data proving beyond reasonable doubt that Jezza is an authoritarian Marxist who loves Assad and Hamas better than Israel, and supports our greatest enemies while intensely disliking his own country. The case is made cumulatively by strand after strand of words, actions and behaviours, every one individually deniable and denied.
Same here. There is a dangerous possibility that Boris's critics are correct; that DC + Boris is a toxic mixture of narcissism, bullying and authoritarianism. For most people the jury is still out. I suspect the day of opinion shifting may be drawing closer.
I think that the public is certain that SKS is not a Marxist, not an authoritarian, is a democrat, is a moderate within the Overton window and is not a narcissist. It's a decent start.
With respect this is a good description of politics as usual. We are about to fall off the map.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It doesn't appear anywhere in Thatcher's archives so I presume it is a fake quote.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
So your principle now seems to be that those who voted against it can't object to how it's carried out, however perversely, and neither should those who voted for it ?
Those who voted Remain can campaign to stay in the single market now Brexit has been delivered or even to rejoin the EU in 4 years time, those who voted Leave must respect the delivery of the platform of the winning Leave campaign they voted for for the rest of this Parliament
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
That argument was fine when only a minority of people wanted independence.
I'm starting to suspect that more than 50% will be voting for it when the option comes.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
So just so I am clear, the latest, greatest theory is that this government is doomed by its own incompetence because it tried to fix the chairmanship of a Parliamentary committee and seems to have made a mess of it?
Does anyone seriously think that anyone not obsessed with politics and not thoroughly committed to their team will even notice? Anyone at all?
We have had a link to the fact that 1/3rd of the companies in the country are looking at redundancies post furlough. Its not so much wood from the trees as matchsticks to giant sequoias. We face the worst economic crisis in any of our life times. The success or failure of this government will be measured by how bad that gets. Nothing else matters.
The way that politics is done matters more than which side wins.
The way in which Johnson does politics is toxic. It seeks to create the partisan divide we see causing so much trouble in the US. It sees politics as an issue of personal loyalty rather than democratic debate.
That atmosphere leads to bad decisions not being challenged, which leads to bad policy and consequences for all our living standards and security.
It may not be widely noticed. It might not affect the opinion polls. It should worry you.
Alternatively, I had a good view of the comet last night and might be taking the portent of doom thing a bit too seriously.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Indeed, but they're already live in Phase 3 in Brazil as far as I understand it which other countries aren't.
I wonder economically if getting it first will see a lot of export revenue as it gets exported or countries/companies across the globe licence it . . . or will we give it away for free?
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
That argument was fine when only a minority of people wanted independence.
I'm starting to suspect that more than 50% will be voting for it when the option comes.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
That argument was fine when only a minority of people wanted independence.
I'm starting to suspect that more than 50% will be voting for it when the option comes.
Including don't knows Yes is still not over 50% but that option should not be for a generation as was agreed in 2014
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwith
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Yes, the Bloomberg article mentioned that and the MERS experience made the Oxford team very confident that wouldn't be the case as hat effect wasn't seen using the same vector and method. As I said, it was basic luck that they had done all of the heavy lifting already and then a lot of hard work to get where they are now.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Have you had a look at the paper on the Moderna trial ? I'm not entirely clear as to how concerning the level of reported side effects might be.
One of the really important (although less emphasised by the press) parts from the earlier Oxford experiments using macaques was that there did not seem to be evidence of antibody-dependent enhancement, which was encouraging.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Indeed, but they're already live in Phase 3 in Brazil as far as I understand it which other countries aren't.
I wonder economically if getting it first will see a lot of export revenue as it gets exported or countries/companies across the globe licence it . . . or will we give it away for free?
Cost price and Astra have deals with several international companies for production, it won't exclusively be made in the UK, we don't have he capacity even with positive developments in the last few months to bring more capacity on line.
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Recent polling means last 3 months (6 at a push) not 2 and a half years ago...
Even in May most Scots did not want indyref2 for at least 5 years and there are only 4 years left of this Tory majority government, so by definition the Tories can refuse it for that time. If Starmer wins in 2024 and allows indyref2 that is up to him
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Have you had a look at the paper on the Moderna trial ? I'm not entirely clear as to how concerning the level of reported side effects might be.
The 21% with side effects on the maximum dosage looked a bit iffy, hopefully the maximum dose isn't required or it can be split into two doses with a booster shot a few weeks later.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
Absolutely. If you ram it hard enough down his throat he's bound to vote for you next time
He doesn't vote Tory now, the Tories have a majority of 80, his vote is not needed.
However he did vote for Brexit, therefore he cannot complain about Brexit being delivered or the manifesto on which Leave won and which is now being implemented, he voted for it, he owns it!
If I owned it we would have already left and know our position in the world (slightly outside the EU and with freedom of movement restricted by using the rules within the EUs own freedom of movement regulations).
I don't which is why Boris is screwing things up for everyone for he isn't as bright as he thinks he is.
The total dominance of the view that Chris Grayling is a complete idiot makes my inner rebel want to defend him.
I know that the 'haven't got any boats' thing was rubbish. What company would have a fleet lying idle waiting in case they received an unknown Government contract? Not a very commercially astute one.
Perhaps the rest of his nincompoopery isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Indeed, but they're already live in Phase 3 in Brazil as far as I understand it which other countries aren't.
I wonder economically if getting it first will see a lot of export revenue as it gets exported or countries/companies across the globe licence it . . . or will we give it away for free?
From what I've read it will be produced under license around the globe; I don't think we'll be directly exporting any actual vaccine.
Economically, by far the most important thing is to stop the virus. Quibbling over a few hundred million dollars in this case is morally and practically wrong.
The total dominance of the view that Chris Grayling is a complete idiot makes my inner rebel want to defend him.
I know that the 'haven't got any boats' thing was rubbish. What company would have a fleet lying idle waiting in case they received an unknown Government contract? Not a very commercially astute one.
Perhaps the rest of his nincompoopery isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
What he hasn't denied is talking to the Labour and SNP members of that committee.
If they are supposed to be picking their chair independently of anyone outside of the committee I would have thought that was the normal way of doing it (although I suspect it was much more of a stitch up than that). Presumably you don't just want someone the largest grouping trusts, but who has support across the parties as a competent and reasonably independent chair.
I wonder if he has any support from the other Tories on the committee now?
Being the only one with prior experience of the committee does seem useful for the chair.
He seems like the better pick to me to chair the committee to be frank.
A plank would be better than Grayling , question is how thick and spineless are the 4 Tory MP's who voted for Grayling.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
*sigh* 1. You can't ban a sovereign nation from holding a referendum. They are a joint signatory to the Act of Union alongside England. Furthermore your "fuck Scotland" approach drives them towards secession not away from it. 2. You have imposed a customs border inside the United Kingdom. Which will make imports from ROI easier than from GB. Driving them towards secession.
We discounted that NI poll as a pile of invalid poo back in February - but I'm not surprised you keep clutching it as a comfort blanket.
On what basis? Zero as you are an ideologue who wants to break up the Union because of your diehard Remainer tantrum that Brexit deserves to break up the UK
I voted to leave....
Well you voted for it, stop whinging about Brexit then
Absolutely. If you ram it hard enough down his throat he's bound to vote for you next time
He doesn't vote Tory now, the Tories have a majority of 80, his vote is not needed.
However he did vote for Brexit, therefore he cannot complain about Brexit being delivered or the manifesto on which Leave won and which is now being implemented, he voted for it, he owns it!
If I owned it we would have already left and know our position in the world (slightly outside the EU and with freedom of movement restricted by using the rules within the EUs own freedom of movement regulations).
I don't which is why Boris is screwing things up for everyone for he isn't as bright as he thinks he is.
We have left, we left the EU in January.
The Leave campaign won on a manifesto commitment to end free movement and replace it with a points system and do our own trade deals.
If you were stupid enough to think your voting Leave would just lead to a minor technical change to the single market, still with EU free movement rules despite knowing full well you needed working class voters voting to end free movement for Leave to win then that is your own fault
Some very interesting results on the side questions. Also interesting that on the question on Who do you think will win the Presidential election, Trump 38%, Biden 37%
The total dominance of the view that Chris Grayling is a complete idiot makes my inner rebel want to defend him.
I know that the 'haven't got any boats' thing was rubbish. What company would have a fleet lying idle waiting in case they received an unknown Government contract? Not a very commercially astute one.
Perhaps the rest of his nincompoopery isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
What part of it was rubbish. What kind of nutter would expect a Ferry company to have ZERO ferries.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
Has there been any recent polling in Scotland, about whether another referendum is actually desired?
Would the people of Scotland prefer to spend the next decade talking about constitutional issues above all else, as they have done for the previous decade - or are health, education, policing and day-to-day life more important to them in the future?
Recent polling means last 3 months (6 at a push) not 2 and a half years ago...
Even in May most Scots did not want indyref2 for at least 5 years and there are only 4 years left of this Tory majority government, so by definition the Tories can refuse it for that time. If Starmer wins in 2024 and allows indyref2 that is up to him
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
Have you had a look at the paper on the Moderna trial ? I'm not entirely clear as to how concerning the level of reported side effects might be.
One of the really important (although less emphasised by the press) parts from the earlier Oxford experiments using macaques was that there did not seem to be evidence of antibody-dependent enhancement, which was encouraging.
Sure. AFAIK, none of the vaccine programmes have thus far shown ADE. There is also the potential for damaging immune responses which aren't ADE, though.
Here's a thread discussing the Moderna trial's experience with adverse events:
I know that the 'haven't got any boats' thing was rubbish. What company would have a fleet lying idle waiting in case they received an unknown Government contract? Not a very commercially astute one.
If you are a company that owns zero ferries, can you legitimately call yourself a ferry company?
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
2014 was a 'once in a generation vote', if we refuse to respect that and grant indyref2 less than 10 years since the first even if Unionists win it, which is by no means certain, nationalists will then be demanding indyref3 within another 10 years.
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
2014 was a 'once in a generation vote', if we refuse to respect that and grant indyref2 less than 10 years since the first even if Unionists win it, which is by no means certain, nationalists will then be demanding indyref3 within another 10 years.
You do not feed the nationalists what they want!
And you a Brexiteer cannot see the irony in that statement
Risk of media filter in Mike’s post. He can only report on what media outlets publish, but bit of a coincidence that English-language media is bragging about two English-language projects. There are an awful lot of other projects out there.
This is about health, but it is also about money and power. A tremendous amount of money. So beware guff.
Oxford and Moderna are definitely out in front for non-Chinese vaccines.
Says another English language media outlet ...
If you read the full article, it doesn't say so anywhere near so explicitly anyway. Though they were certainly ahead of the pack in getting into human trials, English language media or not.
The Bloomberg article posted last night gives the reason why the Oxford team are so far ahead, it's basically just luck that they were already working on a MERS vaccine which was compatible in terms of the mechanism and they already had a lot of testing done for the vector being safe for human use so there wasn't a fear that it would go horribly wrong.
Vaccines can still go wrong, for example by causing Antibody Dependent Enhancement:
The two big risks I see are firstly that governments are gambling on specific vaccines by buying massive numbers of doses ahead of trial or approval. There will be huge pressure to approve these vaccines on possibly inconclusive trial data. They will then apply this vaccine on entire populations in short order. They have one chance to get this right. If there are any adverse effects at all, they will show up after the population has been vaccinated and will be in large absolute numbers, even if the proportion of affected patients is small.
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
Some very interesting results on the side questions. Also interesting that on the question on Who do you think will win the Presidential election, Trump 38%, Biden 37%
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwith
5 part documentary on thatcher to watch just to track down a quote. Don't know if I have the fortitude for it.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Thatcher belongs to an era 3 decades or more ago. I suspect such a quote would emanate from her time as LOTO in the context of the 1978 Sindyref, opposing the principle of referendums.
While political history matters, no one is a oracle that speaks for all times and places.
- phase 1 products have 10% chance of reaching market - Phase 2 have 30% - Phase 3 have 70% - Registration 90%
Vaccines IIRC have a slightly lower rate IIRC (don’t have “diMasi et al” to hand but that’s what people should google if the are interested).
We’ve got a good shot on goal though and there’s enough out there (I’m more sceptical about Moderna but like Jenner and BioNTech).
This is an area where the U.K. government has been very good. But they don’t get credit for it because papers like to write about brilliant scientists rather than the people behind the scenes making it happen. But watch this space
The total dominance of the view that Chris Grayling is a complete idiot makes my inner rebel want to defend him.
I know that the 'haven't got any boats' thing was rubbish. What company would have a fleet lying idle waiting in case they received an unknown Government contract? Not a very commercially astute one.
Perhaps the rest of his nincompoopery isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
Rifkind was surprisingly nice about him; 'perfectly intelligent guy' etc.
However, he pointed out 1) Grayling had zero practical experience to qualify him as chair of the committee, and 2) government and/or the Tory whips had zero business expressing an opinion as to who the chair should be.
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Wrong, allowing indyref2 gives at least a 50% chance of independence given 45% voted Yes in 2014 even before Brexit.
Respecting the 'once in a generation' referendum in 2014 and not allowing indyref2 gives 0 chance of independence even if in a decade or two it might still have to happen as a new generation emerges and after the Brexit outcome is settled
Wrong.
If Scotland votes for independence then that's because that's what the Scots want. You doh't stop that by saying "f**k you" to their votes next year, you change that by winning the argument.
If they vote for an SNP government on a clear and unambiguous manifesto pledge for a referendum and you said "f**k off Scotland we don't care what you think" then you're just guaranteeing the referendum is lost a few years later.
Unionists won the argument in 2014 when 55% of Scots voted No to independence.
Nationalists will use any excuse for another referendum and won in 2016 on that platform, they will not get it from the Tories, there already is a Nationalist majority at Holyrood so next year's vote can only keep the status quo or alternatively produce a Unionist majority (which would ensure no referendum is even asked for) but it needs Westminster approval for any indyref2
What do you think of this Thatcher quote:
'Scotland does not need a referendum on independence. It just needs to send a majority of nationalist MPs to Westminster to have a mandate for independence'
I'm just stirring!
Do you have a source for her saying that? I'd be curious to see the context for it.
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following: If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
It is funny you should ask that because I was unaware of it until watching the 3 part documentary on her (on BBC2 I think) very recently. It was obviously a very old documentary by the age of those contributing. I saw her say it on that. I think it was in a TV studio or being questioned by journalists.
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
I'll take your word for it. Just odd can't find it online.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
You could try tracking down the documentary. I assume it was a pandemic filler. Looking on the internet it appears to be 'Thatcher: A Very British Revolution' which was on in May and June.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
How very interesting. I will look this up forthwith
[edit] the comments ensuing suggest that that TV series has the primary source (alas for you) - but note some of the comments, and a very similar quotation from Mr Forsyth (as he then was?).
Watching last night's LibDem leadership hustings on catch-up. Ed with "here's my green pitch for the future, I have a proven track record delivering this", Layla with "Covid-19 is our big opportunity, lets change GDP as our measure of success".
A chamber of commerce survey shows that a 1/3 of firms are planning to lay people off.
And that's just due to low demand due to Covid...
According to some on here that matters not a jot, as the Conservatives still have a ten point poll lead.
The Tories will have a lead until they no longer do.
And the election is 4 years away so they can do a lot in that time.
The bit I'm really waiting for is when it dawns on Cummings and co that the best way to win the 2024 election would be to ensure 59 MPs no longer sit in Parliament.
I am not sure I am with you. Are you suggesting a spot of gerrymandering might be in order?
I think the idea would be to dispose of all the Scottish MPs in one fell swoop. No gerrymandering required for that, but rather, a bit of u-turning. I am sure Cummings and Johnson would be up for that.
It would be great as far as I'm concerned but that is a very obscure minority opinion within the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I do appreciate someone else using the and Unionist full title. I think a lot of modern day Tories have forgotten the full name of their party. Thanks to the Conservative and Unionist Party I have just had to submit my first customs form so that I will be allowed to continue to sell products in my own country.
That the and Unionist Party would sign such an agreement, not understand what they have signed and then lie about what definitely won't need to be done rather shows up the and Unionist element, as well as the Conservative bit frankly. I have no idea what the Conservative and Unionist Party stands for these days as it clearly isn't Conservatism or Unionism.
Banning indyref2 for a generation is Unionist
No its not.
Stoking up Scottish nationalism with a legitimate grievance that their votes are being ignored is the last thing any true Unionist would want to do. If the Scots elect on a clear and unambiguous manifesto an SNP government pledging a Referendum then replying "f**k you Scottish voters, we don't care what you think, wait a few years and then have your vote" is the last thing a true Unionist would do.
Hmm. I'm doing a course on counterfactual history with the WEA at the moment, and this week we looked at the American War of Independence. The tutor emphasised the difference in treatment between that afforded to the 13 states in 1774/6 with that afforded to the Canadians when they had similar grievances in 1830. And the consequences.
The American colonists did not have representation at Westminster, Scotland has 59 MPs, Scotland also has its own Parliament and Home Rule as Ireland did not have
I never mentioned Ireland. Nor has anyone else. The point I was making is that treating people's grievances seriously generally leads to a better result that effectively saying 'we won; suck it up'. Which is what PM Johnson appears to be saying to the Scots. If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
The majority of those who want indyref2 now are SNP voters who voted Yes in 2014, their grievances can never be appeased without breaking up the Union as their sole aim is an independent Scotland
It has been ever thus but HMG in 2021/22 must lance the boil, grant the referendum, and go out and win it
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
2014 was a 'once in a generation vote', if we refuse to respect that and grant indyref2 less than 10 years since the first even if Unionists win it, which is by no means certain, nationalists will then be demanding indyref3 within another 10 years.
You do not feed the nationalists what they want!
And you a Brexiteer cannot see the irony in that statement
Extraordinary
I voted Remain but the 2016 EU referendum was held a full 41 years after the first EEC referendum in 1975, even the second Quebec referendum on independence from Canada took place in 1995, a full 15 years after the first in 1980
Regarding the Lewis suspension, I would argue that the core of the issue is party discipline.
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Why pick a discipline fight over something you had no business doing in the first place ? Party discipline is of course necessary, but completely out of place here.
Comments
Its often been said she said it but I can't find a source.
What I can find her saying - and which I respect 100% is the following:
If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.
Today's vaccine front page is an obvious exception.
But, actually, that's not what they have done as the SNP policy in in recent elections has NOT technically been independence but a referendum on independence (where they'd campaign for "yes" of course, but wouldn't go for independence without a referendum).
The SNP's reason for doing that is partly electoral in that there are SNP voters who aren't especially keen on independence but feel the SNP provides a more powerful voice for Scotland than does a sub-branch of a UK-wide party (they are in a minority among SNP voters but no doubt deliver seats the SNP wouldn't otherwise win).
EDIT: This does in a sense mean the SNP have some of this in their hands despite being unable to force a referendum, as they could change policy for future elections to "Independence WITHOUT a referendum (as voting for us IS the referendum)". I strongly suspect they won't do that as it would lose the soft SNP wing, but they do have the option to double down in that way.
However, we have -
1) A regime that regards itself above principle
2) A captive population that it regards as inferior and problematic
3) A previous history of medical testing on prisoners (political and otherwise).
I think it is virtually certain that they tested this on prisoners first, *then* the army.
Remember I sell software and consultancy - which is the ultimate in invisible exports
https://twitter.com/Emily_IpsosMORI/status/1265666531284979712?s=20
I just looked it up so as to get the words right for this post and it was clear that others were also asking for a source so it is clearly being disputed as being genuine which is a surprise, because unless I was dreaming (and I have never dreamt of Margaret!) I saw and heard it quite clearly a matter of days ago.
Of course that was before referenda became a part of our constitutional settlement.
Conducting experiments on individuals they don't regard as ethnically pure enough, and then having to repeat them might be regarded as unnecessarily slow.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1283700910431051776?s=20
"Nothing is settled until it's settled".
For entertainment value, it's a gift that just keeps on giving..
If you have examples of non-UK/US vaccine candidates that are in phase 3 trials but not getting any airtime, please post them, I'd be interested to read about them.
If you want to apply that to Ireland, whole or in part, then you can easily see where not treating peoples grievances sympathetically and serious gets you.
I'm very worried now that I just imagined it and I am going to put you through watching it all just to find it. But I am 100% sure because I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. It struck a cord with me when watching it because my immediate reaction was 'Whoops, she wouldn't have said that if she had known that they would win a majority of seats in the future. Something that was unimaginable at the time'.
This highlights the issue ever since 2016 (not just from Leavers but Remainers too). It's always been a battle for the spoils of war, not a sensible discussion about how to compromise in a mature and reasonable way given the exposure of some painful divisions.
Malcolm Rifkind was speculating this morning that the only justification he could come up with for the delay in publishing it was simply to spite Grieve, which is at least plausible, given what we know of the personalities involved.
Alternatively, the bald facts are simply unpalatable to the Leavers at the top of our government & they’re concerned that the report will undermine Brexit. It seems it’s a bit late for that, but who knows? Presumably all the report is going to say is what we already know: that the Russian government viewed Brexit as being in it’s own interest & therefore encouraged it through every channel available to it.
But perhaps this is one of those "everyone knows, but not everyone knows that everyone knows" things & our government fears that putting it out in a printed government report might have results that mere widespread belief has not (to date)?
However he did vote for Brexit, therefore he cannot complain about Brexit being delivered or the manifesto on which Leave won and which is now being implemented, he voted for it, he owns it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
Hence the need for proper Phase 3 trial data.
I'm starting to suspect that more than 50% will be voting for it when the option comes.
I'm not entirely clear as to how concerning the level of reported side effects might be.
The way in which Johnson does politics is toxic. It seeks to create the partisan divide we see causing so much trouble in the US. It sees politics as an issue of personal loyalty rather than democratic debate.
That atmosphere leads to bad decisions not being challenged, which leads to bad policy and consequences for all our living standards and security.
It may not be widely noticed. It might not affect the opinion polls. It should worry you.
Alternatively, I had a good view of the comet last night and might be taking the portent of doom thing a bit too seriously.
I wonder economically if getting it first will see a lot of export revenue as it gets exported or countries/companies across the globe licence it . . . or will we give it away for free?
I don't which is why Boris is screwing things up for everyone for he isn't as bright as he thinks he is.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-07-15/oxford-s-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-coronavirus-front-runner
I know that the 'haven't got any boats' thing was rubbish. What company would have a fleet lying idle waiting in case they received an unknown Government contract? Not a very commercially astute one.
Perhaps the rest of his nincompoopery isn't all it's cracked up to be either.
The licensing terms aren't expected to show any profit:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-06-05-oxford-university-s-covid-19-vaccine-next-steps-towards-broad-and-equitable-global
AstraZeneca is building a number of supply chains in parallel across the world to support global access at no profit during the pandemic and has so far secured manufacturing capacity for two billion doses of the vaccine....
Economically, by far the most important thing is to stop the virus. Quibbling over a few hundred million dollars in this case is morally and practically wrong.
https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2020/07/profile-chris-grayling-scorned-defender-of-the-unglamorous-middle-class.html
The Leave campaign won on a manifesto commitment to end free movement and replace it with a points system and do our own trade deals.
If you were stupid enough to think your voting Leave would just lead to a minor technical change to the single market, still with EU free movement rules despite knowing full well you needed working class voters voting to end free movement for Leave to win then that is your own fault
It is far from certain independence will win the debate post covid and brexit as the nationalists on here proclaim
As a union supporter I do not fear the referendum, but do fear the utter arrogance and nonsense you express on this issue with a 100% tin ear
AFAIK, none of the vaccine programmes have thus far shown ADE. There is also the potential for damaging immune responses which aren't ADE, though.
Here's a thread discussing the Moderna trial's experience with adverse events:
https://twitter.com/iskander/status/1283487939964612610
...
https://twitter.com/iskander/status/1283487949863215104
Does this help?
I couldn't watch it either - brings back memories of the Falklands and the fences torn down around the coal pits.
You do not feed the nationalists what they want!
When parties have been in opposition for a long time they tend to have high levels of unity and discipline as they are desperate to win.
The longer a party is in Government, the more that unity and discipline tends to break down, in part due to complacency.
During parts of last year, Tory party discipline fell apart completely, resulting in a number of MPs leaving the party. Since the election we have seen a number of Government climb downs recently to see off potential backbench rebellions.
No 10 needed to make a point now or discipline would further break down. I suspect Lewis will be readmitted in due course.
It is also worth pointing out that the SNP who were famed for their unanimity are also now starting to see their discipline fraying a bit
Extraordinary
The second risk is that if people get a whiff of any short-cuts being made to the safety regime, they will refuse to vaccinate and the programme will fail, even if the vaccine is actually safe.
gives the usual wording - possibly meant in irony in the context of the 1980s.
I haven'#t been able to document it further.
While political history matters, no one is a oracle that speaks for all times and places.
- phase 1 products have 10% chance of reaching market
- Phase 2 have 30%
- Phase 3 have 70%
- Registration 90%
Vaccines IIRC have a slightly lower rate IIRC (don’t have “diMasi et al” to hand but that’s what people should google if the are interested).
We’ve got a good shot on goal though and there’s enough out there (I’m more sceptical about Moderna but like Jenner and BioNTech).
This is an area where the U.K. government has been very good. But they don’t get credit for it because papers like to write about brilliant scientists rather than the people behind the scenes making it happen. But watch this space
However, he pointed out 1) Grayling had zero practical experience to qualify him as chair of the committee, and 2) government and/or the Tory whips had zero business expressing an opinion as to who the chair should be.
[edit] the comments ensuing suggest that that TV series has the primary source (alas for you) - but note some of the comments, and a very similar quotation from Mr Forsyth (as he then was?).
Party discipline is of course necessary, but completely out of place here.